Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court’s Dharwad Bench, presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, is set to pronounce its verdict today on a crucial petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case.
The case involves allegations against Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who has been named as the prime accused, alongside his wife, B.M. Parvathi.
Table of Contents
Key Allegations in the MUDA Case
The petition, filed by activist Snehamayi Krishna, claims that Siddaramaiah misused his political influence to secure compensation for 14 plots of land in his wife’s name in exchange for three acres and 16 guntas of land acquired by MUDA.
The petitioner has objected to the ongoing Karnataka Lokayukta investigation and insists that only a CBI inquiry can ensure an impartial probe.
Legal Proceedings and Arguments
The court had earlier reserved its order on January 27 after hearing extensive arguments from multiple senior advocates representing various parties.
Petitioner’s Argument for a CBI Probe
Advocate Maninder Singh, representing the petitioner, strongly urged the court to transfer the investigation to the CBI, arguing that:
- The MUDA land scam demands an independent probe to ensure public trust.
- The entire state cabinet appears to be shielding CM Siddaramaiah.
- There have been Supreme Court precedents where similar cases were handed over to the CBI directly.
- CM Siddaramaiah should voluntarily agree to a CBI investigation to demonstrate transparency.
Defense Arguments Opposing the CBI Probe
Senior counsels Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Dushyant Dave, representing Siddaramaiah, his wife, and other accused, opposed the plea on multiple grounds:
- Kapil Sibal: The Lokayukta police function independently under the Lokayukta institution, making a CBI probe unnecessary. The CBI is under the control of the central government, just as the Lokayukta is under the state government.
- Abhishek Manu Singhvi: The petitioner initially requested a Lokayukta investigation but later demanded a CBI inquiry before the Lokayukta could complete its probe, which would set a bad precedent.
- Dushyant Dave: The petitioner’s claims are politically motivated and aimed at embarrassing the Chief Minister. He further argued that his client, landowner J. Devaraju (the fourth accused), faces no criminal charges, negating the need for a CBI investigation.
Enforcement Directorate’s Involvement
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has also entered the fray, issuing notices to B.M. Parvathi and Karnataka’s Urban Development Minister, Byrathi Suresh. Both individuals have approached the Karnataka High Court, challenging the ED’s summons.
In response, the court questioned the ED’s urgency in summoning them and granted temporary relief. However, the ED continues its probe into potential money laundering linked to the alleged land irregularities.
Petitioner’s Stand
Petitioner Snehamayi Krishna remains hopeful that the Karnataka High Court will rule in favor of a CBI probe, arguing that the Lokayukta’s investigation has been compromised due to collusion with the accused. Krishna claims to have provided substantial evidence highlighting corruption in the case.
Implications of the Verdict
If the Karnataka High Court rules in favor of a CBI probe, it could have far-reaching political and legal consequences for CM Siddaramaiah. A CBI investigation would bring national-level scrutiny to the case and could impact the state government’s credibility.
The judgment is eagerly awaited, as it will determine whether the case remains under the purview of the Lokayukta or is escalated to the central investigative agency.
Stay tuned for updates as the Karnataka High Court delivers its verdict on this high-profile case.